Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

===DEFINITIONS:===

Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defence of one's country; national loyalty.

=====================================================
PRO ARGUMENT #1: PATRIOTISM INCREASES INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS
=====================================================

When someone loves their country, it increases their interest in current affairs regarding the country.

- It can increase voter turnout, something which isn't high (61.6% in the 2008 elections) [http://www.politico.com...]. Schools already aim to achieve this therefore, patriotism would make it easier or even accomplish the task alone.

- It increases involvement in National politics.

=====================================================
PRO ARGUMENT #2: PATRIOTISM HAS ECONOMIC BENEFITS
=====================================================

- When someone is patriotic, they are less likely to emigrate to foreign countries. This obviously helps the economy.

- Patriotism increases goods bought that are made in one's country, therefore boosting the said countries economy.

I reserve the right to make further arguments and wish my opponent a good debate. I thank the judges and readers for reading.

I would like to thank my opponent, I-am-a-panda, for participating in this debate.

I negate the resolution.
Patriotism should NOT be taught to children in school.

This round will be brief.

Patriotism reduces self-confidence, firstly. It creates a system in which people doubt their abilities as citizens to change the country or have their say incorporated into governmental affairs.

Patriotism causes people to be criticized for questioning authority. Less questioning of authority essentially means the government is making decisions for the nation mostly by itself. The questioning of authority, even of governmental status, must be encouraged, rather than discouraged, as it leads to the bettering of the decisions made by the government. Having a government that admits that it is not always right on every issue and is willing to listen to the will of the citizens is much more superior.

In response to the arguments made by my opponent, people can still support their country without having to be 100% loyally adhering and devoted to each if its decisions.
While there are some economic benefits of said patriotism, it is still a concept not worthy of being taught in schools. It is far more important to have a system in which the government listens to the doubts of its people, rather than blindly supporting any turn they choose to prescribe. Patriotism, as described, defies this.

I also reserve the right to make further arguments in the next round as necessary.

Thanks to judges, any audience, etc. for reading this debate.
Cheers,
Oboeman.

I would like to thank my opponent for his response, however, the tournament has a strict "Accept the debate within 2 days" rules . He accepted it after 2 had passed therefore, it is an auto-forfeit.

Even though this may count as a "win" for the Cazoic-tournament debate (due to trivial mistake), it is still logical to vote CON for this debate's affiliation with debate.org. That is, I refuted the arguments made by my opponent. Therefore, I ask that the debate.org audience logically vote CON. If my opponent would like to challenge me to a future debate, I would welcome it.

Cheers,
Oboeman